pseudoscience

A pseudoscience is a set of ideas put forth as scientific
when they are not scientific.

Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based
on empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text;
(b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested
in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions
deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by
empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and
therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or
metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to
new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world
rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development
of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; (g) being
approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding
paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and (h) being fallible and put forth
tentatively rather than being put forth as infallible or inerrant.

Some pseudoscientific claims are based on an authoritative text
rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creation
science devotees,
for example, make observations only to confirm dogmas, not to
discover the truth about the natural world. Such dogmas are static and
lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of
the natural world. The main purpose of creationism and
intelligent design is to defend a set
of religious beliefs.

A scientific theory like the theory of natural
selection is not based on a text. Creationists* distort the truth when they
call evolution "Darwinism," as if the science were based on a belief in the
infallible words found in Origin of Species or Descent of Man and
Selection in Relation to Sex. Natural selection is one of several
mechanisms put forth by scientists to explain the fact of evolution. The
various theories of evolution, i.e., mechanisms that explain how
evolution occurs, are defended not by deference to texts but by empirical
evidence from several scientific fields:
embryology, the fossil record,
homology,
genetics,
biogeography,
molecular biology.

Some pseudoscientific claims explain what non-believers cannot even
observe, e.g. orgone energy,
N-rays, or chi. Or, if the
non-believers make any observations regarding the effects of this alleged
energy, their comments regard the psychological mechanisms that lead people
to believe in such chimeras.

We are not, of course, claiming that science deals
only with what can be observed in the present moment. Science often concerns
itself with what probably occurred in the past based on inferences from
empirical data. Science also often studies causal events that can't be
observed such as cigarette smoke causing cancer. Some creationists claim
that since nobody has seen a cat evolve into, say, a dog, evolution doesn't
happen. That is, they claim that since nobody observes evolution of one
species to another in the present, evolution doesn't happen. Anyone who
would make such a claim is simply exposing his ignorance of what evolution
actually claims. (Another sign of ignorance regarding what evolution
actually claims is the assertion that humans evolved from modern apes or monkeys.
Evolution claims that humans and modern apes have a common ancestor, not that we
evolved from modern apes.)*

Some pseudoscientific claims can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable
state of affairs in the empirical world, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard's engrams.
Scientific theories not only explain empirical phenomena, they also predict
empirical phenomena. One way we know a scientific theory is no good is that
its predictions keep failing. Predictions can't fail unless a theory is
falsifiable. Some pseudoscientific claims can't be falsified because they are
consistent with every imaginable empirical state of affairs.
Karl
Popper noted that psychoanalysis, including Freud's notion of the
Oedipus complex, is pseudoscientific because it seems to explain everything
and does not leave open the possibility of error. Even contradictory behaviors
are appealed to in support the Oedipus complex.

Creationists who claim that evolution can't be
disproved are mistaken or lying. All it would take would be to find the
presence of mammals in the pre-Cambrian fossil beds or human and dinosaur
fossils in the same sedimentary layer. Creationists, on the other hand, are
apologists for the faith, not scientists interested in discovering the truth
about the world. They already "know" the truth: it's in their
sacred text. So,
their whole function is to deny and try to find fault with any scientific
claim that is inconsistent with their interpretation of the Bible.*

Creationists often mistake the fact that discoveries
in various sciences keep confirming evolutionary hypotheses as evidence that
evolutionists won't give up their theory no matter what. Nonsense! As noted
above, all it would take would be to find some fossils of mammals (a rabbit
or sheep would do) in pre-Cambrian layers and evolution will have to be
re-examined, revised, or even revoked.

Creationists often point to errors made in science,
real or imagined, to defend their notion that evolution is not a science
because it will defend things that are not true rather than give up its
central tenets. Nonsense! There is nothing in the history of pseudoscience
that compares with the convoluted kinds of reasoning creationists have used
to argue that all scientific methods of dating are wrong, that Noah's ark
landed in Turkey, that the Grand Canyon was formed in a short time by the
great flood that sent Noah's ark to Turkey, etc. Creationists often point to
Haeckel's
embryos as proof that evolution is a pseudoscience. What rubbish! (Click
here for more embryo comparisons.)

Some pseudoscientific ideas rely on ancient myths
and legends rather than on physical evidence, even when the interpretations of those legends
either requires a belief contrary to the known laws of nature or to
established facts, e.g., Velikovsky's, von
Däniken's, and Sitchen's ideas.

This is the central feature of so-called
Young Earth
Creationism (YEC), the notion that the Bible reveals that a god created the
universe about 6,000 years ago. Scientists date the birth of our solar
system to about 4.5 billion years ago and the universe to about 13.7 billion
years ago. These scientific notions about the origin of the universe and our
solar system are based on a
variety of dating
techniques, none of which appeal to ancient myths or legends.*
The YECs use this belief about a recent creation as the main motivating
force to find fault with anything science claims that conflicts with their
faith. Scientists, on the other hand, have found trees that are older
than what the YECs think the earth is. Of course, the
YECs say the
scientists are wrong.

Nobody, I would hope, would accuse either creationism
or evolution of basing their notions on anecdotes or intuition. The one is
based on the Bible and the other on the empirical evidence gathered from a
variety of sciences.

Creationism is, in essence, a metaphysical noton
about the origins of the universe and of life because it asserts the cause
is supernatural. By definition the supernatural is non-empirical. Science
maintains that all hypotheses about the causes it studies refer to
natural causes that have empirical manifestations and may be supported
or refuted by empirical facts. Creationism asserts that no empirical fact
could ever refute it because it is known a priori to be absolutely
true.

Some pseudoscientific ideas not only confuse metaphysical claims with
empirical claims, but they also maintain views that contradict known
scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief, e.g., homeopathy.

Creationists have tried to maintain that evolution
violates the second law of thermodynamics but this idea has been
thoroughly discredited by those who understand physics.

Pseudoscientists claim to base their ideas on empirical evidence, and
they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding
of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being
able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts or with
predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is
not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient
condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A
theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good
scientific theory, but a theory or hypthesis that is consistent with the facts is not
necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis
that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of
the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of
the evil spirits" (Beveridge 1957: p. 118).

_____________

* I'm using
'creationist' in the narrow sense of those who claim some sacred text
informs them how the universe and everything in it was created and that the
sacred text trumps anything science discovers. A good example of
creationists in the sense I am using the term would be the
World Association of
Christian Fundamentalists.

Glymour, Clark and Douglas Stalker. "Winning Through Pseudoscience," in Philosophy
of Science and the Occult, edited by Patrick Grim. 2nd ed. (Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1990), pp. 75-86.